Someone who saves a person from drowning in the hopes of being paid for it is acting morally according to Mill. Why does he say this? Would Kant agree? Do you? Why or why not
Introduction
The relationship and existence of human being in the society is being determined by the moral and the behaviour towards the fellow human being and to another part of the society. According to Mill, the fact about the morality of someone’s action does not depend on the reason and purpose of doing it. It doesn’t matter whether the decision for the move was made through unbiased judgment or by compulsion.
Mill puts his statement clear that a person who saves another creature from drowning has done what is morally right whether the action was motivated by the hope of getting paid after the operation. He then added that for an average person to take action for giving assistant, there might be no time to weigh the utility of every single decision we make. According to Mill, the society will be useful, and we will be generally right if we consider the possible local effect that the action we take will have on us and to other people who are around us. And if every person thinks the potential consequence of their response, then the outcome of our actions will be all happiness.
Kant would not fully agree with Mill school of thought because according to him to decide that the action which a person takes is right; you have to look at the intentions of the act. If the aims of the steps are right, then the action is morally right, but if the purpose is wrong, the act is also wrong.
Conclusion
I would support Kant that a person who saves another from drowning is morally right this because it is difficult to determine the consequences of the action before it is taken. Saving life will be right before checking on what is next after that action.
